I think the critical thing to look at is that both of them have now been in F1 for 11 years (Vettel really 10 1/2). Both have now spent 4 years in a dominant position (really 3 for both with one year closely matched {2012 and 2017}). Both have also spent several years in cars that were 2nd or 3rd best (Like Hamilton in 2007, 2008 or Vettel in 2009, 2015, etc.).

The real difference between them is not what they do in the best car. Both of them have been great in the best car. It's more about the years when the car is not the best. Hamilton wins a lot more races when he doesn't have the best car. Even if you exclude 2007 and 2008 (years where it is clear he had the 2nd best car), Lewis still wins races every season when he doesn't have the best car and has won multiple races in most of those seasons. He has, in fact, won a championship without the best car.

Vettel, on the other hand, has won zero races in seasons like 2014 and 2016, when he was in the 2nd or 3rd best car the whole time. His teammate won 3 races in 2014 and he came up empty handed. That, to me, is where the difference lies. I think Hamilton will end up with significantly more wins overall unless Ferrari suddenly produces a car that is miles ahead of the pack.

Let's completely ignore the fact that from 2014-2016 Mercedes was more dominant than Red Bull ever was, which made it very difficult for any non-Merc to win any races.

In 2011, which you describe as a dominant year, McLaren won 6 races, and hustled Vettel in another 3 races. Ferrari also won 1 race. In other words, Red Bull was only clearly the best car in less than half the races that year.

2011 was actually closer to 2017 than it was to 2016.

Hamilton won 11 races from 2010-2013, while Button won 8. Alonso won 11 too. From 2014-2017, the winningest non-Merc driver has been Vettel with 7 followed by Ricciardo with 5.

Let's completely ignore the fact that from 2014-2016 Mercedes was more dominant than Red Bull ever was, which made it very difficult for any non-Merc to win any races.

In 2011, which you describe as a dominant year, McLaren won 6 races, and hustled Vettel in another 3 races. Ferrari also won 1 race. In other words, Red Bull was only clearly the best car in less than half the races that year.

2011 was actually closer to 2017 than it was to 2016.

Hamilton won 11 races from 2010-2013, while Button won 8. Alonso won 11 too. From 2014-2017, the winningest non-Merc driver has been Vettel with 7 followed by Ricciardo with 5.

Whilst this is true you would equally be ignoring the team mate yourself. Mercedes 2014-216 (especially 2015-2016) the Mercedes ahead at turn 1 - wins the races. Over and done with. Rosberg was a good qualifier too, which put him on for a lot of wins. 20 in fact over that period.

In Vettels last three titles, Webber won a total of 3 races. Vettel won 29. 29-3.The total for all four titles is 34-7.

Hamilton this year has a much weaker car than 2014-2016, but also a weaker team mate. The net results is the same amount of wins per season. He is on 9 wins with 2 to go, he scored 11 in 2014 and 10 in each of 2016 and 2015. He is also on target to score the most amount of poles in a season and possibly points too.

In 2011 Hamilton won 3 races, but there really should have been more. There are obviously the 3 races that Button won. Other than that, McLaren had the pace to win in Malaysia, Spain and Monaco. Hamilton really only won 3 out of 8 or 9 potential wins.

From 2015-16, I really don't see where Vettel threw away any race wins. In 2015, he won on every occasion when Ferrari had the car to do so, which made him the best driver of the season. In 2016 Ferrari didn't have the pace to win anywhere. On the two occasions Vettel made a brilliant start (Australia and Canada), the strategy cost him, and Merc was the better car anyway.

It's true that Hamilton has been very fortunate with the strength of the Mercedes of late, but the advantage they held also gave the the team the rare luxury to ensure both drivers were equally comfortable in the car, which meant that the two drivers took wins and poles of one another. For me, Hamilton's stats are really quite impressive for a driver who has never sought preferential treatment at a team and has come up against some very strong team mates in Rosberg, Button, Alonso and even Bottas. I do however think that as Hamilton's career goes on and he edges his way closer to various records that he is starting to get more tempted by any preferential treatment he can swing. That said, I can equally see him being more than willing to sacrifice a few wins and poles if he gets the opportunity to challenge himself against another top driver, because he realizes that would be just as good for his reputation as improving his stats.

In 2011 Hamilton won 3 races, but there really should have been more. There are obviously the 3 races that Button won. Other than that, McLaren had the pace to win in Malaysia, Spain and Monaco. Hamilton really only won 3 out of 8 or 9 potential wins.

From 2015-16, I really don't see where Vettel threw away any race wins. In 2015, he won on every occasion when Ferrari had the car to do so, which made him the best driver of the season. In 2016 Ferrari didn't have the pace to win anywhere. On the two occasions Vettel made a brilliant start (Australia and Canada), the strategy cost him, and Merc was the better car anyway.

That is a tad revisionist...

Firstly it ignores entirely the importance of track position in Monaco. Then you have Malaysia in which Hamilton was able to barely keep up with Vettel but completely burned through the tyres in doing so. Hamilton was very aggressive trying to undercut Vettel which put them both on quite a sub-optimum strategy. JB ran the optimum strategy and was still well beaten.

Mclaren also won races were it wasn't the best car such as Canada (where it lead for half a lap) and Korea where Vettel retired from the lead on lap 1.

I didn't suggest Vettel throw race wins away in 2015-2016. I was merely commenting regarding wins total for each driver. But by your measure of 2011, he won none of a potential 3 in 2014?

Saying the Mclaren was capable of 8 or 9 wins and inlcuding races like Monaco and Malaysia for 2011 is like saying the Ferrari was capable of 10-11 this year. Which I doubt you are claiming? Vettel was as close or closer to winning in China, Russia, Spain, Baku, Austria, Spa, Singapore, Malaysia, Japan and Mexico this year + his 4 actual wins = 14 races which is very optimistic but he had as much chance in any of those as Mclaren did in Monaco and Malaysia 2011.

Last edited by lamo on Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Let's completely ignore the fact that from 2014-2016 Mercedes was more dominant than Red Bull ever was, which made it very difficult for any non-Merc to win any races.

In 2011, which you describe as a dominant year, McLaren won 6 races, and hustled Vettel in another 3 races. Ferrari also won 1 race. In other words, Red Bull was only clearly the best car in less than half the races that year.

2011 was actually closer to 2017 than it was to 2016.

Hamilton won 11 races from 2010-2013, while Button won 8. Alonso won 11 too. From 2014-2017, the winningest non-Merc driver has been Vettel with 7 followed by Ricciardo with 5.

There were times that the red bull was 1.8 seconds quicker than their nearest rivals. In 2013 it was utterly dominant.

In 2010, only driver errors and Alonso prevented a far more comfortable Red Bull win. Same for 2012 although Mclaren were the faster package by the end of the season.

To say that red bull had the best car in less than half the races in 2011 is reaching to say the least. Had Canada been dry then Vettel would have won.

All the metrics seem to point to Hamilton's career as besting Vettel by the end.

Vettel is two years younger and theoretically has two more years than Hamilton remaining but by the time he is ready to retire Verstappen or another young gun will be at the peak of his powers.

I agree it's going to be very hard for Vettel to catch Hamilton without a dominant car, he's going to up against Hamilton and Verstappen in the next few years and then in 2021 there is going to be a big rule reset with the priority it would seem to be on stopping teams from dominating.

Let's completely ignore the fact that from 2014-2016 Mercedes was more dominant than Red Bull ever was, which made it very difficult for any non-Merc to win any races.

In 2011, which you describe as a dominant year, McLaren won 6 races, and hustled Vettel in another 3 races. Ferrari also won 1 race. In other words, Red Bull was only clearly the best car in less than half the races that year.

2011 was actually closer to 2017 than it was to 2016.

Hamilton won 11 races from 2010-2013, while Button won 8. Alonso won 11 too. From 2014-2017, the winningest non-Merc driver has been Vettel with 7 followed by Ricciardo with 5.

By your own logic, 2011 was a dominant season for Red bull as they took 18 pole positions in 19 races. Your whole argument for suggesting that Mercedes are stronger this year is their record in qualifying and yet the most dominant qualifying season for a team in recent history is just something you choose to ignore? You are not logically consistent with your arguments and that gives away your very intense bias on this.

The idea that the McLaren was as strong as the Red Bull in 2011 is a complete joke. It was clearly the second strongest car overall that year but it was not as good as the Red Bull and not really that close. The gap between them wasn't huge but it was consistently there both in qualifying and in the races. Vettel would qualify on pole, pull a safe gap to get out of DRS range and then just coast in with the win (Webber would generally lose a bunch of positions at the start with a KERS failure).

Red Bull were completely dominant in 2010-2013 with 2012 being the only season where they were truly closely matched. Even in that year Mclaren lost out largely due to reliability while Ferrari lost out on performance. Trying to paint some picture of the Red Bull being overrated during that time is laughable.

The Red Bull in 2010, 2011 and 2013 was clearly more beatable than the Mercedes from 2014-2016, that much is obvious.

Red Bulls qualifying advantage in 2010, 2011 and 2013 was about 0.3-0.4s on average.Mercedes qualifying advantage from 2014-2016 was 0.6-0.7s, roughly double.

Red Bull lost 22 races in 2010, 2011 and 2013.Mercedes lost only 8 races in 2014-2016.Mercedes for 3 consecutive years had the pace to win everywhere except Singapore 2015.

Hamilton won 7 races in 2010, 2011 and 2013. His teammates (Button and Rosberg) won the same number of races in the same seasons.

What Hamilton did during the Red Bull dominant years (2010, 2011, 2013) was nothing special. He finished 4th or 5th in what was mostly the 2nd or 3rd best car. That's nothing Vettel can't do.

There's a lot of misinformation and selective inclusion in there. Let's see, where to start?

The average qualifying gap for Mercedes from 2014-2016 was not 0.6-0.7 seconds. The average gaps were more like 0.3-0.4 seconds in 2016 and about 0.4-0.6 in 2014 with 2015 being somewhere in between. And that's with two elite drivers pushing themselves and the car to its limits. With Red Bull, you had one driver pushing to the limit and another who frequently struggled (either with reliability or in terms o f his own performance). Looking at the number of races that they lost is, again, only looking at a result. The comedy of errors from Mark and Seb in 2010 and Webber's struggles in 2011-2013 with reliability and form are a stark contrast to the nearly flawless performances of Hamilton and Rosberg; who's 1 or 2 off weekends per year always made headlines for how much of a rarity they were.

You also selectively chose Hamilton's worst years relative to his teammates to make your point about his teammates winning the same number of races. The fact is that Hamilton won more races than Button (10-8) and Rosberg (32-22); both world champions; despite having substantially worse reliability than both. Meanwhile, the one top-shelf teammate that Vettel had was Ricciardo who won 3 races while Vettel didn't have a single victory.

Above all, you ignore that Hamilton did not have #1 status throughout. He had to compromise and compete with his teammates. This makes a massive impact on a driver's season. Alonso during those years is massively inflated by the situation at Ferrari and Vettel didn't have any real competition from Mark after 2010. Having that clear top status within the team is worth a lot of points over the course of a season as you don't have someone taking points off of you.

Surely Mercedes had a bigger gap to RB/Williams than 0.4-0.6 in 2014 and Ferrari in 2015? 2016 I could believe was 0.4-0.6 maybe but not a chance for 2014/15.

Are you going by gap between the Mercedes drivers sandman? I think KV is talking about the gap between teams with his figures.

Also I think he wasn't selecting years randomly (2010/11/13) but chose the 3 'Mercedes' type advantage cars RB had to compare to Mercedes 2014-16 rather than the non-dominating car year in 2012 which would be more like 2017.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Surely Mercedes had a bigger gap to RB/Williams than 0.4-0.6 in 2014 and Ferrari in 2015? 2016 I could believe was 0.4-0.6 maybe but not a chance for 2014/15.

Are you going by gap between the Mercedes drivers sandman? I think KV is talking about the gap between teams with his figures.

Also I think he wasn't selecting years randomly (2010/11/13) but chose the 3 'Mercedes' type advantage cars RB had to compare to Mercedes 2014-16 rather than the non-dominating car year in 2012 which would be more like 2017.

This is what Autosport thinks(how handy, this just popped up an hour ago)

The average qualifying gap for Mercedes from 2014-2016 was not 0.6-0.7 seconds. The average gaps were more like 0.3-0.4 seconds in 2016 and about 0.4-0.6 in 2014 with 2015 being somewhere in between. And that's with two elite drivers pushing themselves and the car to its limits.

You are the one spreading false narratives. Mercedes' advantage over the competition was around 0.700s from 2014-2016, the data from Autosport confirms it and the fact is that their advantage was clearly larger than what Red Bull had during their supposedly dominant seasons.

This advantage of 0.700s over the competition is an advantage that both Hamilton and Rosberg held (Rosberg was on average just 0.100s slower than Hamilton), while Vettel's advantage was only about 0.300s in 2010, 2011 and 2013. Hence, either Rosberg is a much faster driver than Vettel, or (the more likely scenario) Mercedes was much more dominant than Red Bull ever was.

Quote:

With Red Bull, you had one driver pushing to the limit and another who frequently struggled (either with reliability or in terms o f his own performance). Looking at the number of races that they lost is, again, only looking at a result. The comedy of errors from Mark and Seb in 2010 and Webber's struggles in 2011-2013 with reliability and form are a stark contrast to the nearly flawless performances of Hamilton and Rosberg; who's 1 or 2 off weekends per year always made headlines for how much of a rarity they were.

How often did Webber and Vettel's errors cost them the race win in 2010? There's obviously Turkey, but other than that, where else? McLaren were running 1-2 in Belgium before Vettel crashed into Button. It was reliability that cost Vettel victory in Australia, Bahrain and Korea. Not his driving. Otherwise there were just some weekends where McLaren or Ferrari were as quick or quicker than Red Bull in 2010. The RB6 is by no means comparable to the W05, W06 or W07.

Quote:

You also selectively chose Hamilton's worst years relative to his teammates to make your point about his teammates winning the same number of races. The fact is that Hamilton won more races than Button (10-8) and Rosberg (32-22); both world champions; despite having substantially worse reliability than both. Meanwhile, the one top-shelf teammate that Vettel had was Ricciardo who won 3 races while Vettel didn't have a single victory.

I did not cherrypick those years because they were Hamilton's worst, I picked them because those are the years where you claim Red Bull was dominant. Well guess what, drivers like Rosberg and Button were regularly on the podium and occasionally won races during Red Bull's supposedly dominant years. Also, Hamilton did not have worse luck than his teammates in 2010, 2011 or 2013. The only seasons where Hamilton's luck was substantially worse than that of his teammate were 2012 and 2016.

Quote:

Above all, you ignore that Hamilton did not have #1 status throughout. He had to compromise and compete with his teammates. This makes a massive impact on a driver's season. Alonso during those years is massively inflated by the situation at Ferrari and Vettel didn't have any real competition from Mark after 2010. Having that clear top status within the team is worth a lot of points over the course of a season as you don't have someone taking points off of you.

We are comparing cars. You claimed that the reason to why Hamilton has more wins than Vettel is because the latter is better at winning when not having the best car. I explained that this is wrong because it was significantly more difficult for anyone outside of Mercedes to win a race in 2014-16 than it was for anyone outside of Red Bull to win a race in 2010, 2011 or 2013.

The average qualifying gap for Mercedes from 2014-2016 was not 0.6-0.7 seconds. The average gaps were more like 0.3-0.4 seconds in 2016 and about 0.4-0.6 in 2014 with 2015 being somewhere in between. And that's with two elite drivers pushing themselves and the car to its limits.

You are the one spreading false narratives. Mercedes' advantage over the competition was around 0.700s from 2014-2016, the data from Autosport confirms it and the fact is that their advantage was clearly larger than what Red Bull had during their supposedly dominant seasons.

This advantage of 0.700s over the competition is an advantage that both Hamilton and Rosberg held (Rosberg was on average just 0.100s slower than Hamilton), while Vettel's advantage was only about 0.300s in 2010, 2011 and 2013. Hence, either Rosberg is a much faster driver than Vettel, or (the more likely scenario) Mercedes was much more dominant than Red Bull ever was.

Quote:

With Red Bull, you had one driver pushing to the limit and another who frequently struggled (either with reliability or in terms o f his own performance). Looking at the number of races that they lost is, again, only looking at a result. The comedy of errors from Mark and Seb in 2010 and Webber's struggles in 2011-2013 with reliability and form are a stark contrast to the nearly flawless performances of Hamilton and Rosberg; who's 1 or 2 off weekends per year always made headlines for how much of a rarity they were.

How often did Webber and Vettel's errors cost them the race win in 2010? There's obviously Turkey, but other than that, where else? McLaren were running 1-2 in Belgium before Vettel crashed into Button. It was reliability that cost Vettel victory in Australia, Bahrain and Korea. Not his driving. Otherwise there were just some weekends where McLaren or Ferrari were as quick or quicker than Red Bull in 2010. The RB6 is by no means comparable to the W05, W06 or W07.

Quote:

You also selectively chose Hamilton's worst years relative to his teammates to make your point about his teammates winning the same number of races. The fact is that Hamilton won more races than Button (10-8) and Rosberg (32-22); both world champions; despite having substantially worse reliability than both. Meanwhile, the one top-shelf teammate that Vettel had was Ricciardo who won 3 races while Vettel didn't have a single victory.

I did not cherrypick those years because they were Hamilton's worst, I picked them because those are the years where you claim Red Bull was dominant. Well guess what, drivers like Rosberg and Button were regularly on the podium and occasionally won races during Red Bull's supposedly dominant years. Also, Hamilton did not have worse luck than his teammates in 2010, 2011 or 2013. The only seasons where Hamilton's luck was substantially worse than that of his teammate were 2012 and 2016.

Quote:

Above all, you ignore that Hamilton did not have #1 status throughout. He had to compromise and compete with his teammates. This makes a massive impact on a driver's season. Alonso during those years is massively inflated by the situation at Ferrari and Vettel didn't have any real competition from Mark after 2010. Having that clear top status within the team is worth a lot of points over the course of a season as you don't have someone taking points off of you.

We are comparing cars. You claimed that the reason to why Hamilton has more wins than Vettel is because the latter is better at winning when not having the best car. I explained that this is wrong because it was significantly more difficult for anyone outside of Mercedes to win a race in 2014-16 than it was for anyone outside of Red Bull to win a race in 2010, 2011 or 2013.

Just because you say something false with conviction, that doesn't change the fact that it's false. Mercedes never averaged a 0.7 second margin to the field in any year between 2014-2016. And that's just looking at average gaps in qualifying between the fastest Mercedes and fastest non-Mercedes (we know that Mercedes had a qualifying mode that made their advantage in qualifying substantially larger than it was during the race). That's also doing nothing to account for driver impact (something you seem totally incapable of grasping for some reason). So your assertion that Hamilton and Rosberg had this level of advantage is completely false.

You suggest that Hamilton didn't have worse luck than his teammates in 2010, 2011 and 2013 and yet the facts very clearly and undoubtedly disagree with you. None of those years is nearly as bad as 2012 in terms of lopsided luck but the only years in Lewis's career in which he had better luck than his teammates were 2009, 2015 and this year. When you look at the number of points that his teammates inherited in those years you referenced through Hamilton's bad luck, it's staggering.

So your argument is to attempt to take shots at Hamilton's wins but what is your explanation for Vettel's lack of wins in a similar position? Especially in looking at a season like 2014, where Ricciardo won 3 races in the same car while Vettel walked away with a goose egg. Even in 2016, the Ferrari was probably the better car than the Red Bull but somehow Vettel didn't win a race despite both Dan and Max getting one. Meanwhile, Hamilton managed to win 2 races in 2009 (a year in which the team started out as a legitimate backmarker).

Just because you say something false with conviction, that doesn't change the fact that it's false. Mercedes never averaged a 0.7 second margin to the field in any year between 2014-2016. And that's just looking at average gaps in qualifying between the fastest Mercedes and fastest non-Mercedes (we know that Mercedes had a qualifying mode that made their advantage in qualifying substantially larger than it was during the race). That's also doing nothing to account for driver impact (something you seem totally incapable of grasping for some reason). So your assertion that Hamilton and Rosberg had this level of advantage is completely false.

You are completely ignoring the facts at this point. Mercedes' qualifying advantage in 2014 was 11.618 seconds over 19 rounds. That's 0.611s on average, which is within the 0.600-0.700s range that I stated. According to Autosport, they calculated Mercedes advantage to be on average about 0.850% in 2014 and 2016, while around 0.700% in 2015 which is lower mainly because of Singapore.

It's objectively correct that Mercedes' advantage from 2014-2016 was bigger than anything Red Bull ever enjoyed over a whole season, it's statistically proven, and the only way it could be disproved is if Vettel is somehow 3 tenths slower than Rosberg and 4 tenths slower than Hamilton. Unlikely. Anyone who argues that the Red Bull cars of 2010, 2011 and 2013 enjoyed equal dominance to the Mercedes cars of 2014-2016 is delusional.

Quote:

You suggest that Hamilton didn't have worse luck than his teammates in 2010, 2011 and 2013 and yet the facts very clearly and undoubtedly disagree with you. None of those years is nearly as bad as 2012 in terms of lopsided luck but the only years in Lewis's career in which he had better luck than his teammates were 2009, 2015 and this year. When you look at the number of points that his teammates inherited in those years you referenced through Hamilton's bad luck, it's staggering.

Hamilton did not have substantially worse luck than his teammate in 2010, 2011 or 2013. In 2010 he had slightly worse luck than Button at best. In 2011 the luck between the two was fairly even. In 2013, Rosberg actually had slightly worse luck than Hamilton. Hamilton's tyre did blow in Silverstone, but Rosberg's front wing failed in Korea and he had three mechanical retirements in Australia, China and Hungary.

Quote:

So your argument is to attempt to take shots at Hamilton's wins but what is your explanation for Vettel's lack of wins in a similar position? Especially in looking at a season like 2014, where Ricciardo won 3 races in the same car while Vettel walked away with a goose egg. Even in 2016, the Ferrari was probably the better car than the Red Bull but somehow Vettel didn't win a race despite both Dan and Max getting one.

In 2014, Ricciardo was extremely lucky to win in Hungary (a race where he was 6th and Vettel was 3rd before the lucky timing of the SC). Otherwise I agree that he was better in Canada and especially in Belgium.

As for Vettel not winning in 2016, Ferrari completely messed up Vettel's strategy twice when he was leading. In Australia, if they had put Vettel on the medium tyres like the Mercedes did, he likely would have won. Ferrari also pitted Vettel and gave up track position (again) in Canada.

Quote:

Meanwhile, Hamilton managed to win 2 races in 2009 (a year in which the team started out as a legitimate backmarker).

And Vettel in 2008 won a race with a car that finished 6th in the WDC, and was significantly worse than even the 2009 McLaren.

Just because you say something false with conviction, that doesn't change the fact that it's false. Mercedes never averaged a 0.7 second margin to the field in any year between 2014-2016. And that's just looking at average gaps in qualifying between the fastest Mercedes and fastest non-Mercedes (we know that Mercedes had a qualifying mode that made their advantage in qualifying substantially larger than it was during the race). That's also doing nothing to account for driver impact (something you seem totally incapable of grasping for some reason). So your assertion that Hamilton and Rosberg had this level of advantage is completely false.

You are completely ignoring the facts at this point. Mercedes' qualifying advantage in 2014 was 11.618 seconds over 19 rounds. That's 0.611s on average, which is within the 0.600-0.700s range that I stated. According to Autosport, they calculated Mercedes advantage to be on average about 0.850% in 2014 and 2016, while around 0.700% in 2015 which is lower mainly because of Singapore.

It's objectively correct that Mercedes' advantage from 2014-2016 was bigger than anything Red Bull ever enjoyed over a whole season, it's statistically proven, and the only way it could be disproved is if Vettel is somehow 3 tenths slower than Rosberg and 4 tenths slower than Hamilton. Unlikely. Anyone who argues that the Red Bull cars of 2010, 2011 and 2013 enjoyed equal dominance to the Mercedes cars of 2014-2016 is delusional.

Quote:

You suggest that Hamilton didn't have worse luck than his teammates in 2010, 2011 and 2013 and yet the facts very clearly and undoubtedly disagree with you. None of those years is nearly as bad as 2012 in terms of lopsided luck but the only years in Lewis's career in which he had better luck than his teammates were 2009, 2015 and this year. When you look at the number of points that his teammates inherited in those years you referenced through Hamilton's bad luck, it's staggering.

Hamilton did not have substantially worse luck than his teammate in 2010, 2011 or 2013. In 2010 he had slightly worse luck than Button at best. In 2011 the luck between the two was fairly even. In 2013, Rosberg actually had slightly worse luck than Hamilton. Hamilton's tyre did blow in Silverstone, but Rosberg's front wing failed in Korea and he had three mechanical retirements in Australia, China and Hungary.

Quote:

So your argument is to attempt to take shots at Hamilton's wins but what is your explanation for Vettel's lack of wins in a similar position? Especially in looking at a season like 2014, where Ricciardo won 3 races in the same car while Vettel walked away with a goose egg. Even in 2016, the Ferrari was probably the better car than the Red Bull but somehow Vettel didn't win a race despite both Dan and Max getting one.

In 2014, Ricciardo was extremely lucky to win in Hungary (a race where he was 6th and Vettel was 3rd before the lucky timing of the SC). Otherwise I agree that he was better in Canada and especially in Belgium.

As for Vettel not winning in 2016, Ferrari completely messed up Vettel's strategy twice when he was leading. In Australia, if they had put Vettel on the medium tyres like the Mercedes did, he likely would have won. Ferrari also pitted Vettel and gave up track position (again) in Canada.

Quote:

Meanwhile, Hamilton managed to win 2 races in 2009 (a year in which the team started out as a legitimate backmarker).

And Vettel in 2008 won a race with a car that finished 6th in the WDC, and was significantly worse than even the 2009 McLaren.

What you said was that Lewis and Nico had 0.7 seconds in hand between 2014-2016 when in fact they never had a 0.7 second average gap in either of those years. You then say that the Torro Rosso was worse in 2008 than the McLaren in 2009 when, in fact, they basically went through the exact same arc (starting the season as a backmarker before mid-season updates made them firmly an upper-midfield team). The single win (and podium) Vettel scored in 2008 was in a race in which he benefited from the McLaren and Ferrari drivers getting caught out in a wet qualifying session and all of them except Kovaleinen starting from deep in the field. It was also a race in which his teammate (Sebastian Bourdais) qualified the same car on the second row. That win is 1 of 4 wins in Vettel's career in a car that wasn't outright best or on par with the best on the season (the other 3 coming in 2015).

Hamilton, by contrast, has won 4 times in 2007, 5 times in 2008, 2 times in 2009, 3 times in 2010 and 2011 and once in 2013; all with a car that was not the best or on par with the best. In a thread in which we are discussing who will end their career with the most wins, I made the point that Hamilton wins more races when not in the best car. This is an objective fact and yet you go to great lengths to try to explain it away. Of course that has been your consistent track record in here of late hasn't it?

What you said was that Lewis and Nico had 0.7 seconds in hand between 2014-2016 when in fact they never had a 0.7 second average gap in either of those years.

the gap is still a lot bigger than the 0.400s you implied. You claimed that the Mercedes was no more dominant than Red Bull and that it was Lewis and Nico that were making all this difference. I pointed out why this is nonsense.

Quote:

You then say that the Torro Rosso was worse in 2008 than the McLaren in 2009 when, in fact, they basically went through the exact same arc (starting the season as a backmarker before mid-season updates made them firmly an upper-midfield team). The single win (and podium)

Kovalainen scored 21 points and Boudrais scored only 2 points. McLaren finished 3rd in the WCC while Toro Rosso finished 6th. No, Toro Rosso was not as good as McLaren.

Quote:

Vettel scored in 2008 was in a race in which he benefited from the McLaren and Ferrari drivers getting caught out in a wet qualifying session and all of them except Kovaleinen starting from deep in the field. It was also a race in which his teammate (Sebastian Bourdais) qualified the same car on the second row.

They weren't caught out in a wet qualifying session, they simply didn't perform. Hamilton's pace on Sunday was more than good enough to win the race, but he failed to deliver on Saturday. To say that other drivers were caught out is just a lame excuse to discredit a win.

Quote:

That win is 1 of 4 wins in Vettel's career in a car that wasn't outright best or on par with the best on the season (the other 3 coming in 2015). Hamilton, by contrast, has won 4 times in 2007, 5 times in 2008, 2 times in 2009, 3 times in 2010 and 2011 and once in 2013; all with a car that was not the best or on par with the best. In a thread in which we are discussing who will end their career with the most wins, I made the point that Hamilton wins more races when not in the best car. This is an objective fact and yet you go to great lengths to try to explain it away. Of course that has been your consistent track record in here of late hasn't it?

This is an irrelevant argument, because Vettel only had 2 seasons like Hamilton's 2007/2008/2010/2011/2013 where he had the best car on plenty of weekends but still not the best car overall. In fact, you claim that Vettel's wins in 2009 and 2017 were won with the best car. Neither of these cars were the outright best over the whole season. You might claim that he had the best over those certain weekends. Then I will make the point that were were plenty of individual weekends in 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2011 where McLaren had the best car. There were also some weekends in 2013 where Mercedes had the best car.

In 2007, on all 4 race weekends Hamilton won, Alonso was at least 0.280% faster than both Raikkonen and Massa in qualifying.

In 2008, Kovalainen outqualified both Ferrari drivers Australia, Britain and Germany. This I suppose leaves Monaco and China as the two weekends where Hamilton won with an inferior car.

The fact that sandman claims that Hamilton won 9 races with an "inferior car" in 2007 and 2008, and then refuses to give Bahrain 2017 to Vettel shows his laughable double standards.

Based on what would have seen would you not expect Alonso to usually qualify at least 0.3 ahead of the Ferrari's if the cars were equal. I always enjoy your posts which are well thought out but I think you do seem to fall into the trap of saying car X was ahead of Y so car X must be the better car. You have to factor the driver as a variable as well and make a guess.

What you said was that Lewis and Nico had 0.7 seconds in hand between 2014-2016 when in fact they never had a 0.7 second average gap in either of those years.

the gap is still a lot bigger than the 0.400s you implied. You claimed that the Mercedes was no more dominant than Red Bull and that it was Lewis and Nico that were making all this difference. I pointed out why this is nonsense.

Quote:

You then say that the Torro Rosso was worse in 2008 than the McLaren in 2009 when, in fact, they basically went through the exact same arc (starting the season as a backmarker before mid-season updates made them firmly an upper-midfield team). The single win (and podium)

Kovalainen scored 21 points and Boudrais scored only 2 points. McLaren finished 3rd in the WCC while Toro Rosso finished 6th. No, Toro Rosso was not as good as McLaren.

Quote:

Vettel scored in 2008 was in a race in which he benefited from the McLaren and Ferrari drivers getting caught out in a wet qualifying session and all of them except Kovaleinen starting from deep in the field. It was also a race in which his teammate (Sebastian Bourdais) qualified the same car on the second row.

They weren't caught out in a wet qualifying session, they simply didn't perform. Hamilton's pace on Sunday was more than good enough to win the race, but he failed to deliver on Saturday. To say that other drivers were caught out is just a lame excuse to discredit a win.

Quote:

That win is 1 of 4 wins in Vettel's career in a car that wasn't outright best or on par with the best on the season (the other 3 coming in 2015). Hamilton, by contrast, has won 4 times in 2007, 5 times in 2008, 2 times in 2009, 3 times in 2010 and 2011 and once in 2013; all with a car that was not the best or on par with the best. In a thread in which we are discussing who will end their career with the most wins, I made the point that Hamilton wins more races when not in the best car. This is an objective fact and yet you go to great lengths to try to explain it away. Of course that has been your consistent track record in here of late hasn't it?

This is an irrelevant argument, because Vettel only had 2 seasons like Hamilton's 2007/2008/2010/2011/2013 where he had the best car on plenty of weekends but still not the best car overall. In fact, you claim that Vettel's wins in 2009 and 2017 were won with the best car. Neither of these cars were the outright best over the whole season. You might claim that he had the best over those certain weekends. Then I will make the point that were were plenty of individual weekends in 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2011 where McLaren had the best car. There were also some weekends in 2013 where Mercedes had the best car.

So now you're putting words in my mouth I see. Please find where I claimed that the Mercedes wasn't more dominant than the Red Bull. You can't because I never said that. This is something of a pattern in here with some posters. When all else fails, you simply make up an argument and put it in someone else's mouth.

You then claim that McLaren and Ferrari weren't caught out in a qualifying session in 2008. This is what's known as a lie. Please watch that qualifying session again and you'll see that drivers who didn't get in their lap in time before the rain picked up ended up getting screwed. Again, you seem to just make things up and hope that no one will actually remember (or check) for facts.

The cars Vettel drove in 2009 and 2017 were on par with the best cars. If you want to make it about individual weekends, then Vettel certainly had the best car in Singapore in 2015 when he won that race. All you are doing (and all you've been doing since it became clear that Hamilton was going to win the championship this season) is making excuses. Your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on because you don't have any factual support for the idea that Vettel can win races as frequently as Hamilton when not in the best car. Basically Vettel has had ample opportunities to prove himself in this regard and has had a spotty track record. Failing to win a single race in both 2014 and 2016 with a car that was 2nd or 3rd best in both of those years and with a teammate who managed to take three wins in one of them is something you seem to conveniently refuse to discuss. Also, Hamilton racking up vastly more wins in similar circumstances is something you don't have an answer for.

If we were all to look at F1 the way you seem to want to (at least as it pertains to Hamilton), there would be no reason for drivers to ever try to win races or championships because all of their success would simply be explained away by people like you.

You then claim that McLaren and Ferrari weren't caught out in a qualifying session in 2008. This is what's known as a lie. Please watch that qualifying session again and you'll see that drivers who didn't get in their lap in time before the rain picked up ended up getting screwed. Again, you seem to just make things up and hope that no one will actually remember (or check) for facts.

Hamilton's lap times on intermediates were several seconds slower than those of other drivers who were also circling around on intermediates at the same time as him, the same can be said of Raikkonen. Hamilton himself said after qualifying that he couldn't find his braking points. Please watch Q2 again.

Quote:

The cars Vettel drove in 2009 and 2017 were on par with the best cars. If you want to make it about individual weekends, then Vettel certainly had the best car in Singapore in 2015 when he won that race. All you are doing (and all you've been doing since it became clear that Hamilton was going to win the championship this season) is making excuses. Your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on because you don't have any factual support for the idea that Vettel can win races as frequently as Hamilton when not in the best car. Basically Vettel has had ample opportunities to prove himself in this regard and has had a spotty track record.

Vettel's cars in 2009 and 2017 were inferior in the same sense that Hamilton's cars in 2007 and 2008 were inferior. Of course, the fact that Hamilton's main competition in 2007 and 2008 was Massa and Kimi only made his job that much easier.

Quote:

Failing to win a single race in both 2014 and 2016 with a car that was 2nd or 3rd best in both of those years and with a teammate who managed to take three wins in one of them is something you seem to conveniently refuse to discuss. Also, Hamilton racking up vastly more wins in similar circumstances is something you don't have an answer for.

And yet you say:

Quote:

So now you're putting words in my mouth I see. Please find where I claimed that the Mercedes wasn't more dominant than the Red Bull.

You don't deny the fact that Mercedes was more dominant than Red Bull, and yet you claim that Hamilton has racked up vastly more wins than Vettel did in 2014 and 2016 in "similar circumstances". Now please answer me, when did Hamilton ever race in similar circumstances to Vettel in 2014 and 2016? Driving mostly the second or third best car, but the best car was dominant by >0.600 seconds? Please give me an example.

Also, Hamilton has failed to come even close to Vettel's record of 15 poles, or 13 wins, or 9 consecutive wins despite driving a car that was perfectly capable of breaking these records for 3 consecutive seasons.

You then claim that McLaren and Ferrari weren't caught out in a qualifying session in 2008. This is what's known as a lie. Please watch that qualifying session again and you'll see that drivers who didn't get in their lap in time before the rain picked up ended up getting screwed. Again, you seem to just make things up and hope that no one will actually remember (or check) for facts.

Hamilton's lap times on intermediates were several seconds slower than those of other drivers who were also circling around on intermediates at the same time as him, the same can be said of Raikkonen. Hamilton himself said after qualifying that he couldn't find his braking points. Please watch Q2 again.

Quote:

The cars Vettel drove in 2009 and 2017 were on par with the best cars. If you want to make it about individual weekends, then Vettel certainly had the best car in Singapore in 2015 when he won that race. All you are doing (and all you've been doing since it became clear that Hamilton was going to win the championship this season) is making excuses. Your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on because you don't have any factual support for the idea that Vettel can win races as frequently as Hamilton when not in the best car. Basically Vettel has had ample opportunities to prove himself in this regard and has had a spotty track record.

Vettel's cars in 2009 and 2017 were inferior in the same sense that Hamilton's cars in 2007 and 2008 were inferior. Of course, the fact that Hamilton's main competition in 2007 and 2008 was Massa and Kimi only made his job that much easier.

Quote:

Failing to win a single race in both 2014 and 2016 with a car that was 2nd or 3rd best in both of those years and with a teammate who managed to take three wins in one of them is something you seem to conveniently refuse to discuss. Also, Hamilton racking up vastly more wins in similar circumstances is something you don't have an answer for.

And yet you say:

Quote:

So now you're putting words in my mouth I see. Please find where I claimed that the Mercedes wasn't more dominant than the Red Bull.

You don't deny the fact that Mercedes was more dominant than Red Bull, and yet you claim that Hamilton has racked up vastly more wins than Vettel did in 2014 and 2016 in "similar circumstances". Now please answer me, when did Hamilton ever race in similar circumstances to Vettel in 2014 and 2016? Driving mostly the second or third best car, but the best car was dominant by >0.600 seconds? Please give me an example.

Also, Hamilton has failed to come even close to Vettel's record of 15 poles, or 13 wins, or 9 consecutive wins despite driving a car that was perfectly capable of breaking these records for 3 consecutive seasons.

Hamilton glazed his brakes in Monza 2008 qualifying that's why he had problems with his braking points.

You then claim that McLaren and Ferrari weren't caught out in a qualifying session in 2008. This is what's known as a lie. Please watch that qualifying session again and you'll see that drivers who didn't get in their lap in time before the rain picked up ended up getting screwed. Again, you seem to just make things up and hope that no one will actually remember (or check) for facts.

Hamilton's lap times on intermediates were several seconds slower than those of other drivers who were also circling around on intermediates at the same time as him, the same can be said of Raikkonen. Hamilton himself said after qualifying that he couldn't find his braking points. Please watch Q2 again.

Quote:

The cars Vettel drove in 2009 and 2017 were on par with the best cars. If you want to make it about individual weekends, then Vettel certainly had the best car in Singapore in 2015 when he won that race. All you are doing (and all you've been doing since it became clear that Hamilton was going to win the championship this season) is making excuses. Your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on because you don't have any factual support for the idea that Vettel can win races as frequently as Hamilton when not in the best car. Basically Vettel has had ample opportunities to prove himself in this regard and has had a spotty track record.

Vettel's cars in 2009 and 2017 were inferior in the same sense that Hamilton's cars in 2007 and 2008 were inferior. Of course, the fact that Hamilton's main competition in 2007 and 2008 was Massa and Kimi only made his job that much easier.

Quote:

Failing to win a single race in both 2014 and 2016 with a car that was 2nd or 3rd best in both of those years and with a teammate who managed to take three wins in one of them is something you seem to conveniently refuse to discuss. Also, Hamilton racking up vastly more wins in similar circumstances is something you don't have an answer for.

And yet you say:

Quote:

So now you're putting words in my mouth I see. Please find where I claimed that the Mercedes wasn't more dominant than the Red Bull.

You don't deny the fact that Mercedes was more dominant than Red Bull, and yet you claim that Hamilton has racked up vastly more wins than Vettel did in 2014 and 2016 in "similar circumstances". Now please answer me, when did Hamilton ever rsace in similar circumstances to Vettel in 2014 and 2016? Driving mostly the second or third best car, but the best car was dominant by >0.600 seconds? Please give me an example.

Also, Hamilton has failed to come even close to Vettel's record of 15 poles, or 13 wins, or 9 consecutive wins despite driving a car that was perfectly capable of breaking these records for 3 consecutive seasons.

Let's tackle this last part because I think it's important to deal with reality here instead of the alternate history you seem to want to create. The actual largest ever gap between Mercedes and the next closest car between 2014-2016 was 0.6 seconds in 2014. 2015 and 2016 were both slimmer gaps and if you remove the largest 2 outlier gaps in all of those seasons, the average drops massively. Your notion that they had a gap of larger than 0.6 seconds is false. 0.6 seconds was the largest gap they had in any of those seasons. And, again, that gap is purely a measure of qualifying times. It doesn't take into account driver performance or the substantial difference when you look at race pace.

The records you refer to for Vetel are single season records and they are the result of Mark Webber simply not offering a challenge as a teammate. That's really all there is to it. If Daniel Ricciardo or some other strong driver were Vettel's teammate (the way Hamilton had to deal with Rosberg) then Vettel would not have had such a lopsided haul of the team's wins. It's also important to note that Hamilton and Vettel's seasons in 2015 and 2013 respectively are very similar up to the point at which the title was clinched. Had Hamilton won the last three meaningless rounds the way Vettel did, he would have had 13 wins himself. I suppose you can criticize him for switching off somewhat after the title was decided but the point is that it was after the title was decided. If you think racking ups stats in meaningless races is important then we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

In terms of your comment that the Red Bull in 2009 and the Ferrari in 2017 are the equivalent of the McLaren in 2007 and 2008; what is your basis for making that claim? On what grounds do you determine that the Ferrari was slower than the Mercedes this year or that the Red Bull was slower than the Brawn in 2009? The basis for saying that Ferrari had the edge over Mclaren in 2007-2008 is actually crystal clear. Hamilton and Alonso were in a dog fight with Massa and Raikkonen and, for the world, it seemed to be very evenly matched. With Massa and Raikkonen later being teamed with Alonso and proving quite convincingly to be well beneath his level of performance, we now have clarity on those years. The Ferrari had to have been better for those years to have gone the way they did.

What you say about 2009 and 2017 though certainly doesn't have that level of support. It's basically just something you want to put forth with no actual evidence to support it. Sure, Brawn certainly started the season with the best car in 2009 but from Silverstone on, I'd say Red Bull had the upper hand overall in terms of their car. Vettel was still quite young at that time and he made some errors and had some crashes. Ultimately, while Jenson struggled for pace in much of the second half of the season, he was able to hold on and take the title through just keeping the car on the track. In 2017, if we listen to the actual comments from Ferrari themselves (not to mention from most of the paddock) Ferrari had all the performance they needed to beat Mercedes. It was reliability and mistakes that cost them.

You then claim that McLaren and Ferrari weren't caught out in a qualifying session in 2008. This is what's known as a lie. Please watch that qualifying session again and you'll see that drivers who didn't get in their lap in time before the rain picked up ended up getting screwed. Again, you seem to just make things up and hope that no one will actually remember (or check) for facts.

Hamilton's lap times on intermediates were several seconds slower than those of other drivers who were also circling around on intermediates at the same time as him, the same can be said of Raikkonen. Hamilton himself said after qualifying that he couldn't find his braking points. Please watch Q2 again.

Quote:

The cars Vettel drove in 2009 and 2017 were on par with the best cars. If you want to make it about individual weekends, then Vettel certainly had the best car in Singapore in 2015 when he won that race. All you are doing (and all you've been doing since it became clear that Hamilton was going to win the championship this season) is making excuses. Your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on because you don't have any factual support for the idea that Vettel can win races as frequently as Hamilton when not in the best car. Basically Vettel has had ample opportunities to prove himself in this regard and has had a spotty track record.

Vettel's cars in 2009 and 2017 were inferior in the same sense that Hamilton's cars in 2007 and 2008 were inferior. Of course, the fact that Hamilton's main competition in 2007 and 2008 was Massa and Kimi only made his job that much easier.

Quote:

Failing to win a single race in both 2014 and 2016 with a car that was 2nd or 3rd best in both of those years and with a teammate who managed to take three wins in one of them is something you seem to conveniently refuse to discuss. Also, Hamilton racking up vastly more wins in similar circumstances is something you don't have an answer for.

And yet you say:

Quote:

So now you're putting words in my mouth I see. Please find where I claimed that the Mercedes wasn't more dominant than the Red Bull.

You don't deny the fact that Mercedes was more dominant than Red Bull, and yet you claim that Hamilton has racked up vastly more wins than Vettel did in 2014 and 2016 in "similar circumstances". Now please answer me, when did Hamilton ever rsace in similar circumstances to Vettel in 2014 and 2016? Driving mostly the second or third best car, but the best car was dominant by >0.600 seconds? Please give me an example.

Also, Hamilton has failed to come even close to Vettel's record of 15 poles, or 13 wins, or 9 consecutive wins despite driving a car that was perfectly capable of breaking these records for 3 consecutive seasons.

Let's tackle this last part because I think it's important to deal with reality here instead of the alternate history you seem to want to create. The actual largest ever gap between Mercedes and the next closest car between 2014-2016 was 0.6 seconds in 2014. 2015 and 2016 were both slimmer gaps and if you remove the largest 2 outlier gaps in all of those seasons, the average drops massively. Your notion that they had a gap of larger than 0.6 seconds is false. 0.6 seconds was the largest gap they had in any of those seasons. And, again, that gap is purely a measure of qualifying times. It doesn't take into account driver performance or the substantial difference when you look at race pace.

The records you refer to for Vetel are single season records and they are the result of Mark Webber simply not offering a challenge as a teammate. That's really all there is to it. If Daniel Ricciardo or some other strong driver were Vettel's teammate (the way Hamilton had to deal with Rosberg) then Vettel would not have had such a lopsided haul of the team's wins. It's also important to note that Hamilton and Vettel's seasons in 2015 and 2013 respectively are very similar up to the point at which the title was clinched. Had Hamilton won the last three meaningless rounds the way Vettel did, he would have had 13 wins himself. I suppose you can criticize him for switching off somewhat after the title was decided but the point is that it was after the title was decided. If you think racking ups stats in meaningless races is important then we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

In terms of your comment that the Red Bull in 2009 and the Ferrari in 2017 are the equivalent of the McLaren in 2007 and 2008; what is your basis for making that claim? On what grounds do you determine that the Ferrari was slower than the Mercedes this year or that the Red Bull was slower than the Brawn in 2009? The basis for saying that Ferrari had the edge over Mclaren in 2007-2008 is actually crystal clear. Hamilton and Alonso were in a dog fight with Massa and Raikkonen and, for the world, it seemed to be very evenly matched. With Massa and Raikkonen later being teamed with Alonso and proving quite convincingly to be well beneath his level of performance, we now have clarity on those years. The Ferrari had to have been better for those years to have gone the way they did.

What you say about 2009 and 2017 though certainly doesn't have that level of support. It's basically just something you want to put forth with no actual evidence to support it. Sure, Brawn certainly started the season with the best car in 2009 but from Silverstone on, I'd say Red Bull had the upper hand overall in terms of their car. Vettel was still quite young at that time and he made some errors and had some crashes. Ultimately, while Jenson struggled for pace in much of the second half of the season, he was able to hold on and take the title through just keeping the car on the track. In 2017, if we listen to the actual comments from Ferrari themselves (not to mention from most of the paddock) Ferrari had all the performance they needed to beat Mercedes. It was reliability and mistakes that cost them.

Without getting involved in the wider argument, I don't understand the claim in bold. In Spa 2014 the gap was 1.9 seconds!

What does it matter how big the gap was? Once the gap between the best car and the 2nd best car grows to 0.350+ that basically means, if those two cars have eqaully good drivers then the driver in the faster car will out qualify the other driver 90% of the time. Move that a little closer to 0.500 and its basically 100%.

The 2014 Mercedes was what, 0.6-0.8 per lap quicker than anything else. Do you think it would make a single bit of difference if that was was 1.2-1.6 seconds quicker than anything else? No. They would still start every race 1-2 and finish every race 1-2 in which they didn't collide into one another or break down.

So its 2 of Hamilton's 5 wins in which Heikki was also ahead of Ferrari's. Fuel adjusted, Massa was also about 0.050 behind Hamilton in Germany. I would think there is a strong case for the Ferrari to be superior if Massa is that close to Hamilton.

Not to mention Heikki was actually very strong in qualifying (nearly Hamilton's match) but hopeless in the race which was the exact opposite of Raikkonen.

The 2008 Mclaren is the only car in the last 30 years to win the WDC whilst winning less races than another car. #

Hamilton also has the fewest dry race wins for a WDC since 1982 with just 3 wins from 15 races dry races.

Last edited by lamo on Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:43 pm, edited 4 times in total.

I thought he might have done, but then surely the logical statement would be Hamilton is the only driver to have won the WDC while winning fewer races than another driver? But Rosberg did that last year, so that wouldn't work, either. In any event, talking about the cars threw me a bit. 2005 is also an example of the WDC car winning fewer races than a competitor

I thought he might have done, but then surely the logical statement would be Hamilton is the only driver to have won the WDC while winning fewer races than another driver? But Rosberg did that last year, so that wouldn't work, either. In any event, talking about the cars threw me a bit. 2005 is also an example of the WDC car winning fewer races than a competitor

I guess it would be: Hamilton is the only driver to have won the WDC while winning fewer races than another driver from a different team in the last 30 years.

Not sure if this is too off topic, but regarding Hamilton wins in 2014 and the dominance of that car..

Andy Cowell, head of engines at Mercedes is on record (immediately after 2014) that Williams had a better chassis/car at 4-5 races in 2014 but Mercedes had better drivers and a better team to maximise their car.

Given that Hamilton has out qualified Bottas by 0.450-0.750 range in about 6 or 7 races this year, Cowells comments were laughed at by some when he said it but they have aged very well given this season. Bottas also had his weakest year against Massa in 2014, so he has probably improved, he was thrashing Massa by 2016. I also remember a thread in here in 2014 where it was discussed if Alonso had been in the Williams he might have been able to get involved in the title fight by picking up the pieces when Mercedes dropped the ball and finishing 3rd in all the other races. Maybe he could have...

Massa/Bottas were 0.200 and 0.250 off pole in BrazilMassa/Bottas 1-2 in Austria, 0.200 ahead of RosbergBottas 0.200 off Rosberg in Germany for poleSilverstone the car looked strong in the dry but awful once it rained for qualifyingBottas was 0.400 behind Hamilton in Russian qualifying

Sometimes the dominance can be, at least in part down to the drivers. I am sure the same applies to some of Vettels wins at times in 2011 and 2013 possibly too.

Not sure if this is too off topic, but regarding Hamilton wins in 2014 and the dominance of that car..

Andy Cowell, head of engines at Mercedes is on record (immediately after 2014) that Williams had a better chassis/car at 4-5 races in 2014 but Mercedes had better drivers and a better team to maximise their car.

Given that Hamilton has out qualified Bottas by 0.450-0.750 range in about 6 or 7 races this year, Cowells comments were laughed at by some when he said it but they have aged very well given this season. Bottas also had his weakest year against Massa in 2014, so he has probably improved, he was thrashing Massa by 2016. I also remember a thread in here in 2014 where it was discussed if Alonso had been in the Williams he might have been able to get involved in the title fight by picking up the pieces when Mercedes dropped the ball and finishing 3rd in all the other races. Maybe he could have...

Massa/Bottas were 0.200 and 0.250 off pole in BrazilMassa/Bottas 1-2 in Austria, 0.200 ahead of RosbergBottas 0.200 off Rosberg in Germany for poleSilverstone the car looked strong in the dry but awful once it rained for qualifyingBottas was 0.400 behind Hamilton in Russian qualifying

Sometimes the dominance can be, at least in part down to the drivers. I am sure the same applies to some of Vettels wins at times in 2011 and 2013 possibly too.

Yes I did hear something similar from Cowell, I think it largely got dismissed but I guess it needed Bottas to go to Mercedes for it to be given any merit?